tiltbillings wrote:"Protestant Buddhism" is not come to Sri Lanka, it arose there as a result of "Traditional Buddhism" near demise at the hands of Christian missionizing and oppresion under the Dutch and British rules.

Whoever said Protestant Buddhism came to Sri Lanka? It came from the challenge the Christians posed to it. But in the process of defending itself it compromised many of its traditional beliefs and attitudes. In a sense it became more Christianlike and more modern. Protestant Buddhism is not traditional Buddhism.

It's noteworthy that in Pandura it was the nature of God -- not whether he existed or not -- that was one of the topics up for debate.

tiltbillings wrote:"Protestant Buddhism" did not come to Sri Lanka, it arose there as a result of "Traditional Buddhism" near demise at the hands of Christian missionizing and oppresion under the Dutch and British rules.

Whoever said Protestant Buddhism came to Sri Lanka? It came from the challenge the Christians posed to it. But in the process of defending itself it compromised many of its traditional beliefs and attitudes. In a sense it became more Christianlike and more modern. Protestant Buddhism is not traditional Buddhism.

I simply misread your convoluted sentence.

It's noteworthy that in Pandura it was the nature of God -- not whether he existed or not -- that was one of the topics up for debate.

Whoever said Protestant Buddhism came to Sri Lanka? It came from the challenge the Christians posed to traditional Sinhala Buddhism. But in the process of defending themselves the Sinhala (especially those educated in English} compromised many of their traditional beliefs and attitudes. In a sense they became more Christianlike and more modern. Protestant Buddhism is not traditional Buddhism.

Whoever said Protestant Buddhism came to Sri Lanka? It came from the challenge the Christians posed to traditional Sinhala Buddhism. But in the process of defending themselves the Sinhala (especially those educated in English} compromised many of their traditional beliefs and attitudes. In a sense they became more Christianlike and more modern. Protestant Buddhism is not traditional Buddhism.

As I said, I simply misread your convoluted sentence. Also, do not forget to mention the vital role the "White Buddhists" played in this, as well as Theosophy. I am not so sure the Protestant Buddhism is totally a bad thing.

it [traditional Buddhism] is a far cry from atheism which is one of the reasons why modernists have come to reject it, or at the very least

And by this you mean?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Given that in the Panadura Debate the existence of God wasn't open to debate -- but rather whether he created the universe and is eternal -- I don't think Ven. Gunananda Thera would have considered himself an atheist. Traditional Sinhala Buddhism holds Visnu to be the Supreme Deity -- Lord of the Gods -- the protector of their religion and their homeland. He holds sway over the devas and yakshas that play a role in their lives. While he may not have created them and he is destined to pass away, their belief in him constitutes a level of theism that can't be dismissed as atheistic.

In the Suttas one gets a sense of this same attitude. I think that traditional Sinhala Buddhism is probably closer to the spirit of the Pali Suttas than the modernists who tend to read a hard atheism into the Buddha's Teaching.

Given that in the Panadura Debate the existence of God wasn't open to debate -- but rather whether he created the universe and is eternal -- I don't think Ven. Gunananda Thera would have considered himself an atheist. Traditional Sinhala Buddhism holds Visnu to be the Supreme Deity -- Lord of the Gods -- the protector of their religion and their homeland. He holds sway over the devas and yakshas that play a role in their lives. While he may not have created them and he is destined to pass away, their belief in him constitutes a level of theism that can't be dismissed as atheistic.

In the Suttas one gets a sense of this same attitude. I think that traditional Sinhala Buddhism is probably closer to the spirit of the Pali Suttas than the modernists who tend to read a hard atheism into the Buddha's Teaching.

Interesting. Where in the suttas is Vishnu mentioned? Again, it depends upon what one means by atheist. The idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos finds no support in the suttas. If anything, it is rejected. Certainly, the devas are part of the world view of the Buddha. To me that is not a problem.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:Interesting. Where in the suttas is Vishnu mentioned? Again, it depends upon what one means by atheist. The idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos finds no support in the suttas. If anything, it is rejected. Certainly, the devas are part of the world view of the Buddha. To me that is not a problem.

Visnu is identified with the indigenous deity Upulvan who in the Mahavamsa was appointed by Sakka (Indra) to look after the Sinhala and their religion. Over time however the role of Sakka has diminished to the point that Visnu is regarded as supreme. My point is that this sort of divine hierarchy does appear in the Suttas, and it probably affected the early followers of the Buddha in much the same way as it affects the Sinhala of today who find themselves on the other side of Western culture.

I completely agree with you that the Buddha denied any sort of transcendent, independent being: it's the contingency of transcendence that is the essence of the teaching of aniccata. But I think it might be better to follow Ven. Ñanavira's advise and to regard the question as treacherous: it's best not to be bullied into a categorical answer. For those with a theological bent God is much like the world: his inexistence is inconceivable.

tiltbillings wrote:Interesting. Where in the suttas is Vishnu mentioned? Again, it depends upon what one means by atheist. The idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos finds no support in the suttas. If anything, it is rejected. Certainly, the devas are part of the world view of the Buddha. To me that is not a problem.

Visnu is identified with the indigenous deity Upulvan who in the Mahavamsa was appointed by Sakka (Indra) to look after the Sinhala and their religion. Over time however the role of Sakka has diminished to the point that Visnu is regarded as supreme. My point is that this sort of divine hierarchy does appear in the Suttas, and it probably affected the early followers of the Buddha in much the same way as it affects the Sinhala of today who find themselves on the other side of Western culture.

In other words, there is no Vishnu in the suttas.

I completely agree with you that the Buddha denied any sort of transcendent, independent being: it's the contingency of transcendence that is the essence of the teaching of aniccata. But I think it might be better to follow Ven. Ñanavira's advise and to regard the question as treacherous: it's best not to be bullied into a categorical answer. For those with a theological bent God is much like the world: his inexistence is inconceivable.

No one is bullying anyone about what the suttas say. I don't find Nanavira particularly convincing on this. Interestingly the Buddha addressed some of critiques to those "with a theological bent."

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:But show me where in the suttas Vishnu is mentioned by that name. He is not.

Does it really matter? The contemporaries of the Buddha regarded Sakka as king of the gods, the Sinhala give that role to Visnu. You are correct that both are worldly, but if you're at all familiar with traditional Indians you'd have to concede that in their worldly affairs their dependence on the divine and the demoniacal goes well beyond their concern over crops.

As for the existence of God:

Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable Onewould not posit as categorically true or falseanything seen, heard, or sensed,clung to and considered truth by others. [668]

Since they have already seen this dart [669]to which people cling and adhere,saying “I know, I see, it is just so,”the Tathāgatas cling to nothing. AN 4.24

buddha came to this world to teach prestine dhamma path. those who work little will go to heaven. others who have completed reach NIBBANA. and in very few suttas, you will fin that buddha has given discourses about DEVAS and their life span and facilities..etc. but it does nt mean that he came to send people to heaven or Brahma world. everyone cannot understand this dhamma. so he must have adviced those people to go to higher realms rather than going down to hell. please visit the following link. you can download the PDF.

buddha came to this world to teach prestine dhamma path. those who work little will go to heaven. others who have completed reach NIBBANA. and in very few suttas, you will fin that buddha has given discourses about DEVAS and their life span and facilities..etc. but it does nt mean that he came to send people to heaven or Brahma world. everyone cannot understand this dhamma. so he must have adviced those people to go to higher realms rather than going down to hell. please visit the following link. you can download the PDF.

What about those who aspire to learn the Dhamma from Maithree Bodhisattva himself? In the Suttas the Buddha is able to bring about the rising of the dhammacakkhu in someone through a simple sermon after a meal, e.g. the Upālisutta or the Brahmāyusutta while in the world today there are those who devote their entire lives to achieving such a view, and more often than not fail in the attempt. For some an auspicious rebirth at the time when Maithree Bodhisattva teaches the Dhamma holds out more promise than blindly grasping for a glimpse of enlightenment.

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't follow the Eightfold Path to the best of our abilities, only that a good rebirth might play into a strategy of becoming enlightened, and liberated.

Last edited by pulga on Fri Jan 24, 2014 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pulga wrote:I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't follow the Eightfold Path to the best of our abilities, only that a good rebirth might play into a strategy of becoming enlightened, and liberated.

I wholeheartedly agree with this and I think that the suttas definitely support this. One example is the beginning of Itivuttaka 22:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Monks, don't be afraid of acts of merit. This is another way of saying what is blissful, desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming — i.e., acts of merit. I am cognizant that, having long performed meritorious deeds, I long experienced desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming results.

buddha came to this world to teach prestine dhamma path. those who work little will go to heaven. others who have completed reach NIBBANA. and in very few suttas, you will fin that buddha has given discourses about DEVAS and their life span and facilities..etc. but it does nt mean that he came to send people to heaven or Brahma world. everyone cannot understand this dhamma. so he must have adviced those people to go to higher realms rather than going down to hell. please visit the following link. you can download the PDF.

And when he talked about nagas, implied the world being flat with a big mountain in the middle, spirits in trees etc?